Is marital rape scripturally defensible?

[elohiym]

"I don't feel like it," means she is not aroused. That is a good enough reason to say no.

I disagree. That's simply not how debts work. "I won't pay up because I don't feel like paying" isn't good enough.

You are implying sex is a currency within the marital economy that is owed like a debt. However, Romans 13:8 states: "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law." Nothing but love is owed, and sex isn't love.

Why should sex be obligatory when she is not aroused?

That's the nature of the marital obligation. Each party is required to accede to the demand of the other unless grave circumstances intervene.

If one demands yes and one demands no, why does the one not aroused have to accede to the other's demand? It's not logical. For your idea to work, a man would have to posses the right to reject his wife's reasonable demand to pass for lack of arousal.

(Note: She's probably not aroused because her husband thinks he has the right to demand sex whenever he wants and would force her if he has to. You would have to probably spend some time in prison to know what that's like.)

"You owe me five dollars." "Eh...my wallet's in my pocket...I don't feel like pulling it out..."

When she's not aroused there is no wallet and no pockets.

The only way that "I am not in the mood" could possibly fly is if this indicates a physical impossibility. For example, in the case of male dysfunction and a bad heart, he easily could say "no."

A woman not being aroused can be equivalent to male dysfunction, so you shot yourself with that concession. See female sexual dysfunction.

:e4e:

 

[ClimateSanity]

Yes. Even in such cases, though a man is entitled to "put away" his wife, i.e., obtain a civil divorce or separation, he may not remarry so long as she is alive. They are still married.

Where do you get that from?

 

[Traditio]

Where do you get that from?

It's the teaching of the Catholic Church. You'll likely quote the gospel verse where Jesus says "except in the case of adultery," but I'll answer that he simply indicating that, in such a case, the husband can say to his wife, in so many words: "GET OUT!"

He's not saying that the marriage is thereby dissolved. Only death effects the dissolution of a Christian marriage.

 

[Traditio]

You are implying sex is a currency within the marital economy that is owed like a debt.

I wouldn't use that language; I will, however, that each partner owes sexual intercourse to the other if it is requested.

However, Romans 13:8 states: "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law." Nothing but love is owed, and sex isn't love.

In the case of marriage, love requires the accession of sexual intercourse to one's spouse when reasonable request is made. The wife should seriously consider the following: if she says "no," perhaps her husband, already obviously seeking sexual expression, may commit a sin of impurity, die, and then go to Hell...and she won't be entirely without blame.

She is her husband's keeper. She is responsible for him.

If one demands yes and one demands no, why does the one not aroused have to accede to the other's demand?

The "burden" is on the one saying "no" to have grave reason for so doing.

It's not logical. For your idea to work, a man would have to posses the right to reject his wife's reasonable demand to pass for lack of arousal.

He doesn't have the right to force his wife to have sex in spite of saying "no." That's not what I'm claiming. If she says "no," he has to respect it. What I am saying is that the wife, unless she has grave and compelling reasons to do otherwise, shouldn't be saying "no" in the first place, and her refusal could possibly constitute a mortal sin. She's placing her husband in the near occassion of mortal sin.

A woman not being aroused can be equivalent to male dysfunction, so you shot yourself with that concession. See female sexual dysfunction.

I don't think that they are exactly equivalent. Male dysfunction indicates the inability to become aroused.

 

[ClimateSanity]

It's the teaching of the Catholic Church. You'll likely quote the gospel verse where Jesus says "except in the case of adultery," but I'll answer that he simply indicating that, in such a case, the husband can say to his wife, in so many words: "GET OUT!"

He's not saying that the marriage is thereby dissolved. Only death effects the dissolution of a Christian marriage.

The bible allows polygamy. He is free to marry another wife.

 

[Traditio]

The bible allows polygamy. He is free to marry another wife.

Thus the reason why sola scriptura is so utterly silly. You can read all kinds of silly things into a written text. It's necessary to take into account the doctrines of the Catholic Church, the Sacred Tradition, i.e., oral doctrines, handed down to us from Jesus and His apostles through the succession of bishops even to the present day, etc.

Polygamy isn't cool. Remarriage so long as the spouse survives isn't cool. "Till death do us part" means "Till death do us part."

It is for good reason that the apostles responded, upon hearing the injunctions of Jesus on marriage: "Then perhaps it is better not to marry!"

 

[ClimateSanity]

Thus the reason why sola scriptura is so utterly silly. You can read all kinds of silly things into a written text. It's necessary to take into account the doctrines of the Catholic Church, the Sacred Tradition, i.e., oral doctrines, handed down to us from Jesus and His apostles through the succession of bishops even to the present day, etc.

Polygamy isn't cool. Remarriage so long as the spouse survives isn't cool. "Till death do us part" means "Till death do us part."

It is for good reason that the apostles responded, upon hearing the injunctions of Jesus on marriage: "Then perhaps it is better not to marry!"

You haven't made the case that remarriage isn't cool. I can make the case that banning remarriage is barbaric and cruel.

 

[Traditio]

You haven't made the case that remarriage isn't cool. I can make the case that banning remarriage is barbaric and cruel.

Theologically, or in terms of moral theology, I'm entitled to answer that we may be certain of this because the Church so teaches. If you wish to talk about the Bible, then I'll simply point to, again, Church teaching, Sacred Tradition, etc.

Barring Tradition, Church Teaching, etc., I'll simply explain how any verses that you would bring forward in favor of these things can be interpreted differently.

Barring a theological discussion, and if we were to speak on the natural level, it would be difficult for me to establish these things...mainly because I'm not an ethicist. I would, however, be able to show that any reasons you have in favor of them simply are inconclusive from a rational point of view.

At any rate, here are two considerations:

Theologically speaking, sacramental marriage imperfectly imitates and foreshadows the union of Christ to His Church, which is a one-to-one relationship.

Naturally speaking, marriage has a natural ordering to the begetting of and education of children. This seems inconsistent with divorce and remarriage.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Theologically, or in terms of moral theology, I'm entitled to answer that we may be certain of this because the Church so teaches. If you wish to talk about the Bible, then I'll simply point to, again, Church teaching, Sacred Tradition, etc.

Barring Tradition, Church Teaching, etc., I'll simply explain how any verses that you would bring forward in favor of these things can be interpreted differently.

Barring a theological discussion, and if we were to speak on the natural level, it would be difficult for me to establish these things...mainly because I'm not an ethicist. I would, however, be able to show that any reasons you have in favor of them simply are inconclusive from a rational point of view.

God is love. Love precludes barbarism.

 

[Traditio]

God is love. Love precludes barbarism.

1. I edited my posting to include the following arguments:

"Theologically speaking, sacramental marriage imperfectly imitates and foreshadows the union of Christ to His Church, which is a one-to-one relationship.

Naturally speaking, marriage has a natural ordering to the begetting of and education of children. This seems inconsistent with divorce and remarriage."

2. Even granted that neither argument works, I'm unconvinced that the prohibition of remarriage is barbaric. If anything, divorce and remarriage seems much more barbaric.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Theologically, or in terms of moral theology, I'm entitled to answer that we may be certain of this because the Church so teaches. If you wish to talk about the Bible, then I'll simply point to, again, Church teaching, Sacred Tradition, etc.

Barring Tradition, Church Teaching, etc., I'll simply explain how any verses that you would bring forward in favor of these things can be interpreted differently.

Barring a theological discussion, and if we were to speak on the natural level, it would be difficult for me to establish these things...mainly because I'm not an ethicist. I would, however, be able to show that any reasons you have in favor of them simply are inconclusive from a rational point of view.

At any rate, here are two considerations:

Theologically speaking, sacramental marriage imperfectly imitates and foreshadows the union of Christ to His Church, which is a one-to-one relationship.

Naturally speaking, marriage has a natural ordering to the begetting of and education of children. This seems inconsistent with divorce and remarriage.

Remarriage is much better at begetting children and promoting education than remaining celibate.

 

[Traditio]

Remarriage is much better at begetting children and promoting education than remaining celibate.

I believe that you've misunderstood me. If the goal of marriage is to produce and educate a child, the end of marriage, i.e., the education of a child, is frustrated, or at least, hindered, if the parents divorce.

 

[ClimateSanity]

1. I edited my posting to include the following arguments:

"Theologically speaking, sacramental marriage imperfectly imitates and foreshadows the union of Christ to His Church, which is a one-to-one relationship.

Naturally speaking, marriage has a natural ordering to the begetting of and education of children. This seems inconsistent with divorce and remarriage."

2. Even granted that neither argument works, I'm unconvinced that the prohibition of remarriage is barbaric. If anything, divorce and remarriage seems much more barbaric.

Here is what is barbaric:
Denying a man or a woman the right of a loving marriage when he did nothing at all to bring about the prior divorce. Forcing him to live alone without comfort is barbaric in cases where his children have been removed from him.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I believe that you've misunderstood me. If the goal of marriage is to produce and educate a child, the end of marriage, i.e., the education of a child, is frustrated, or at least, hindered, if the parents divorce.

We are in agreement on divorce....it is very barbaric. We are talking about remarriage.

 

[elohiym]

In the case of marriage, love requires the accession of sexual intercourse to one's spouse when reasonable request is made.

I don't get that from 1 Corinthians 13.

The wife should seriously consider the following: if she says "no," perhaps her husband, already obviously seeking sexual expression, may commit a sin of impurity, die, and then go to Hell...and she won't be entirely without blame.

What if he was to blame for her lack of arousal?

The "burden" is on the one saying "no" to have grave reason for so doing.

What desperate man wants to have sex with a woman who isn't aroused? I mean besides a rapist.

He doesn't have the right to force his wife to have sex in spite of saying "no." That's not what I'm claiming. If she says "no," he has to respect it.

Yay, we agree on that much.

What I am saying is that the wife, unless she has grave and compelling reasons to do otherwise, shouldn't be saying "no" in the first place, and her refusal could possibly constitute a mortal sin.

She decides if her reasons are compelling. The husband doesn't get to decide her reasons aren't compelling enough.

Male dysfunction indicates the inability to become aroused.

So does female dysfunction.

 

[Traditio]

Here is what is barbaric:
Denying a man or a woman the right of a loving marriage when he did nothing at all to bring about the prior divorce.

I'm going to deny the bolded both relatively and absolutely.

1. Relatively, you are begging the question; if a pre-existing marriage is a hindrance to marriage, then no such right exists in his case.

2. Absolutely speaking, in what sense can we say that marriage is a "right"? In what sense is marriage "owed" to anyone?

2. Forcing him to live alone

Nobody's forcing such a person to live alone. "Roommates" are a thing.

 

[ClimateSanity]

What desperate man wants to have sex with a woman who isn't aroused? I mean besides a rapist.



.

I tried saying this about my reasons for not forcing myself on a wife. I was made to feel like I had a biological defect. I can see now other men cannot be aroused by a non responsive woman.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I'm going to deny the bolded both relatively and absolutely.

1. Relatively, you are begging the question; if a pre-existing marriage is a hindrance to marriage, then no such right exists in his case.

2. Absolutely speaking, in what sense can we say that marriage is a "right"? In what sense is marriage "owed" to anyone?



Nobody's forcing such a person to live alone. "Roommates" are a thing.

Sex outside of marriage is fornication. Paul said it is better to marry than burn. Burning alone with no hope of a sexual partner is barbaric.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I'm going to deny the bolded both relatively and absolutely.

1. Relatively, you are begging the question; if a pre-existing marriage is a hindrance to marriage, then no such right exists in his case.

2. Absolutely speaking, in what sense can we say that marriage is a "right"? In what sense is marriage "owed" to anyone?



Nobody's forcing such a person to live alone. "Roommates" are a thing.

Marriage is owed no oneone. Preventing marriage by law or religion is barbaric.

 

[Arsenios]

The truth hurts sometimes.
Believe me all you young men out there,
you don't even want to go into slavery.
(eg Get Married)

Christian Life in Christ is NOT ABOUT whatever it might be that YOU WANT...

It is about living a Christ-obedient Life, doing the will of Christ-God, and not YOUR OWN will or desire...

The only way to disciple the Will of God is to DENY self-will...

Arsenios